Wakilii

Nabitaka Amrwazia and Another v Ssewakiryanga Stuart (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 70 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court dismissal of trespass suit
Decision
Respondent declared a trespasser; trial court judgment set aside

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial magistrate erred in relying on hearsay evidence and conjecture to find that the respondent's father had purchased the suit land and occupied it for over 50 years. The respondent failed to prove a valid purchase or lawful occupation. Material contradictions in defence witnesses' testimony, particularly regarding the alleged sale, were not adequately reconciled. The appellants, as registered proprietors with unchallenged title, proved their ownership through estate administration. The respondent's entry and planting of eucalyptus trees in 2018 constituted trespass. The trial court erred in clothing the respondent with tenant-by-occupancy status without proof of the statutory requirements.

Outcome

Respondent declared a trespasser; trial court judgment set aside

Facts

The appellants are registered proprietors of land comprised in Gomba Block 272 Plot 10, having acquired it as beneficiaries from the estate of their late father, Tewodolo Kasumba, who died in 1976. They sued the respondent for trespass, alleging he entered approximately 3 acres of the suit land around 2018 and planted eucalyptus trees without permission. The respondent defended on the basis that his late father, Yekoyada Busuulwa, had purchased 6 acres from Tewodolo Kasumba in 1968 for Shs. 300/= and that his family had occupied the land unchallenged for over 50 years, making him a tenant by occupancy. The trial magistrate dismissed the suit, finding the respondent was a lawful occupant. The appellants appealed, challenging the trial court's evaluation of evidence and reliance on hearsay and conjecture.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by deciding the suit for the respondent despite hearsay and contradictions in the evidence of the respondent's witnesses.
  2. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion that the respondent is not a trespasser on the suit land.
  3. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she relied on conjectures and fanciful theories in finding that the late Tewodolo Kasumba sold the suit land to the late Yekoyada Busuulwa and that the late Yekoyada Busuulwa took possession over the suit land since 1968.
  4. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact to disregard the appellants' evidence as to ownership of the suit property.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The judgment and orders of the Magistrate Grade I in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2022 at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Gomba at Kanoni are set aside.
  • The respondent is declared a trespasser on land comprised in Block 272 Plot 10 at Kubamitwe, Gomba District.
  • The appellants are awarded costs of this appeal and of the suit in the trial court.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Hearsay — Burden of Proof — Alleged Land Purchase
Where a defendant asserts that land was purchased by his predecessor, the burden of proof lies on him to establish a valid sale. Testimony from witnesses who did not witness the transaction, have no written proof, and rely on what they were told by others constitutes hearsay evidence and cannot discharge the burden of proof under sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act.
Evidence — Contradictions — Material Contradictions — Credibility of Witnesses
Material contradictions in a witness's testimony, particularly where the witness contradicts his own witness statement during cross-examination on matters central to the case, render that testimony unreliable. The gravity of a contradiction depends on the centrality of the matter it relates to in the determination of key issues. A trial court errs in law when it relies heavily on such contradicted testimony to reach its conclusions.
Land Law — Tenancy by Occupancy — Statutory Requirements — Land Act s.29(1)(b)
A person claiming to be a tenant by occupancy under section 29(1)(b) of the Land Act must prove that he or his predecessor entered the land with the consent of the registered owner, including as a purchaser. Permission to occupy, standing alone, does not amount to possession and cannot mature into a proprietary right unless the statutory requirements are fully satisfied. A trial court errs in clothing a party with tenant-by-occupancy status without substantial evidence of lawful entry and occupation.
Land Law — Certificate of Title — Conclusive Evidence of Ownership — Registration of Titles Act s.59
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of the registered proprietor's ownership and such proprietor is seized with possession of the land stated therein. A registered proprietor is deemed to be in legal possession and is entitled to sue in trespass unless another party proves lawful possession. A certificate of title can only be impeached on account of fraud.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — General Grounds — Order 43 rule 1(2) CPR
A ground of appeal framed as 'the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole reaching a wrong conclusion thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice' is too general and does not state the specific evidence the trial judge failed to evaluate properly. Such a ground does not disclose specific errors of law or fact and may be struck out. However, grounds that clearly outline specific failures such as reliance on hearsay, contradictions in evidence, and disregard of ownership evidence are sufficiently specific and not vague.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
A first appellate court is under a duty to re-evaluate the evidence on record and draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses testify. The court must subject the entire evidence to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny in determining whether the conclusions of the trial court can stand.
Evidence — Judicial Findings — Conjecture and Speculation — Evaluation of Evidence
Judicial findings must always emanate from evidence adduced at trial which is properly evaluated and not from assumptions. A trial court's acceptance of unproven historical assertions, in the face of material contradictions, amounts to conjecture and constitutes a misdirection in law. Where a trial court concludes that a party had occupied land for over 50 years despite gaps in the evidence and absence of proof, such conclusion is speculative and erroneous.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Biryomumisho Didas v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2019)
  • Kwezi and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 266 of 2024)
  • Obiya Hillary and Another v Mungu Aciel Rasul (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2012)
  • Attorney General and Another v Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (Miscellaneous Application No. 482 of 2020)
  • Ddungu Lillian v Marc Widmer and Another (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Nabitaka Amrwazia and Another v Ssewakiryanga Stuart (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 70 (10 February 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.